Wednesday, August 18, 2010

I've been doing more watching than commenting lately on the evo-psych blogs (which is normal, really). There's been a heavy focus in the last week, heavier than usual, I mean, on female promiscuity.

I remember reading a post on the idea that sluthood was achieved when a certain number of partners was reached, and I commented that, no, there isn't a number. That I've met girls with a grand total of five partners that were sluttier than girls with a partner count in the 20s, or my "amazing" partner count in the mid-70s.

Derision followed.

So I sat there, staring at the computer, wondering why I was unable to communicate this simple idea.

Because, when it comes to sexuality, most people are very black and white.

And a person's partner count defines, of course, who they are. Like a character leveling up in a video game, achieving talents, experience points, whatever. An overarching drive to a universal idea of mega-slut that all girls end up at. That you can tell a girl's partner count, especially if it is high, just by interacting with her.

I've said this all before, in here and in comments on other blogs.

For many people, it is the behavior that defines a person.

Which I think is a dramatic demonstration of a lack of experience on their part.

I do not believe we are what we do. Which, I suppose, is very un-American of me.

I believe that what is more important than a behavior, or even a behavior pattern, is the motivations behind it. The psychology.

So when I've got some bitter evo-psych/MRA guy desperately trying to be a PUA so he can sexually validate himself in a display of anger telling me that since I have a "high" number I have poor impulse control and am doomed to failing relationships and dating the bottom of the barrel for the rest of my life, not to mention cheating on all my partners...

What a sad little view of the world.

I'm looking at motivations.

If someone has a high partner count and, for some bizarre reason that bothers me, I want to know why. I want to know if it is poor impulse control. I want to know if some tragic event happened that caused them to go on a sexual rampage for a year. I want to know if they just enjoy sex and are aware of safety and their psychological needs. Or six dozen other reasons for having a highly active sex life.

Not as excuses. I don't need excuses.

We aren't "excusing" behavior. That is saying that the behavior itself is wrong. I don't believe it is. I believe that there are healthy reasons and unhealthy reasons to engage in promiscuious behavior, but I do not believe I have the ultimate say (or any say) in letting another person know that what they are doing is Inherently Unhealthy.

I sometimes try to use myself as an example of promiscuity that was garnered due to my own psychological "needs" and "tragic" event circumstances, not as an indiciator of poor impulse control. I either get completely laughed at and called a slut (but, of course, only online... I can't think of a time in life that I've ever been called a slut) or told that I am the exception to the rule, blah blah.

The same crowds that dismiss my experiences as "an exception to the rule" also lump me in with the "sluts" and tell me that I'm "just like all the other girls".

It's quite sad.

I'm losing my need to interact with these people. I came into this scene with a desire to learn, grow, exchange ideas, expand my worldview. I thought there would be people there I could relate to, enjoy, sit around discussing the ideas of desire, of escalation, comparing sex stories, social stories, trying to be the best we could be.

Instead I mostly found a bunch of men of all ages, most of them bitter, most of them angry, most of them hanging onto this worldview they want so badly to be true so it confirms their behavior so they don't feel like losers, clinging to stereotypes for validation.

It reminds me of when I started at my college, working on my BA, so excited to be with like-minded people, with the same focus, educated, broad-minded, and I found a bunch of under-educated, unexperienced morons clinging to their upper-middle class WASP belief systems, wanting to be social workers so they could "show people how to live right".

So disappointing. So worthless.

I spent those two years with my nose in a book, writing my papers, striving towards a degree, understanding concepts that I had to sit and explain to those kids for hours because their brains could not wrap around anything but what supported their worldviews.

I don't need to spend my time around this type of people. I want to learn, I want to grow, and this, this isn't cutting it.

11 comments:

The double standard is so annoying... if high numbers indicates a lack of impulse control, then they should check their own behaviour.

I recently read a message board post from a man who was concerned about a woman who was reported to be a former slut, trying to pass herself off as a classy woman in an effort to land herself a good man (like him? an admitted player himself). Pfft.

I like sluts. I almost worshipped my first lover for the fact that I was her 23rd. The idea of a female mind that loves sex that much entrances me. It's why I have the Sex and the City DVDs.

Have you checked out fastseduction.com? There are some occasional female posters, and the board overall seems pretty tolerant of female promiscuity.

I don't understand why Roissy has so much animosity to sluts. I wish he'd stop talking about it; I think it's part of the reason the comments there have degraded so much. Even four months ago, the comments section there was pretty interesting, but now it sucks. What other blogs are you talking about?

My personal view is that a lot of these guys, including some who should know better, don't actually know what they want in a woman. There is a huge degree of confusion even in Roissy's posts (of course, this could be explained by the different Chateau members thing, but even so...)

I do think however that men who have had a lot of short-term relationships they are going to find it far more difficult to be faithful to a single partner in the long-term, particularly (and I emphasise particularly here) if they pick a woman who is completely inexperienced.

It's dangerous to generalise, but I think that despite what a lot of Roissy commenters would like to think, it's more difficult for a man in this position to be faithful to a single partner than it is for a woman who has had many previous relationships. What is going to happen is that they will lead her to believe that they are committed, get tired of her, and a whole mess will ensue. Actions have consequences and once you take the red pill it's difficult to go back.

Someone made a point on Racer X's blog that a lot of the Roissyspherians' interaction with women is about revenge as much as anything else. I would agree.

You should take a look at this post on johnny5's blog in which he dissects the whole desire for a pure virgin thing. I just don't think it's a workable possibility after a certain point. If I were a virgin looking for an LTR the last thing I'd be after would be a Gamer, even a reformed one.

http://hvren.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/hold-em/

My big problem with the term is that it is completely subjective. Anyway, what partner count makes someone a slut? Surely her age and the circumstances in which she got together with the partners must be relevant here, also, exit velocity must also be highly relevant.

Roissy and the other boards attract commenters of widely varying quality. Many are as you described; some are very smart and thoughtful and reasonable. I have learned to skim through and separate the wheat from the chaff. Some of the old regulars have moved on, but some of the new ones are also pretty good.

I think you can separate evo-psych as a worldview from the sexual histories and agendas of some of its adherents and proponents. Pretty easily, in fact. SO that may be a way to look at it - what these guys think about partner counts, or female sexality, or, well, *you*, shouldn't really matter. It's all just information, organized loosely in the vast frame of the web, so troll lightly and pick up what speaks to you. Right?

For men, it isn't impulse control. It's being "masculine". Funny how, when a woman sleeps around, it is very unfeminine.

And I hate when guys say that. Physical violence approaches. Gyeh.

Johnathan,

First, -I- haven't even seen Sex in the City. Second, you are a rare man, assuming you're not submissive. That would make a bit more sense, on the standard social level.

Roissy is all about masculine power reigning over sexuality. The inexperienced are easily seduced, the experienced woman knows when she's having good or bad sex, knows when someone is trying to pick her up, and can make a knowledgeable choice. That's something Roissy can't control, something where he won't necessarily make the grade. It's like playing chess with a four year old and patting yourself on the back for winning, and then suddenly having to face someone better than you.

I don't like listing out blogs that I don't enjoy, as I do not want to encourage traffic to their sites, but there are some doozies out there. Easy to find among the Roissy commenters and his blogroll, though not everyone in that blogroll is a tool.

The Savage,

That's nearly exactly it. Unfortunately, most men are not able to make that distinction.

SD,

I never thought of it as confusion, but I definitely can see where you are coming from, and the support for it. And I think your generalization is quite accurate, overall.

But what I must know: is there an equation to determine exit velocity? If I make a reference to swallows caring coconuts, will you appreciate the reference?

I will definitely check out the blogpost you linked to. It feels like there has been such a heavy emphasis on this topic of late, has been rather odd.

Maurice,

I just don't know how much time I'm willing to spend separating the wheat from the chaff. There have to be better places with a better ratio of intelligence to assholery so I can use my time more efficiently, you know?

Something seems wrong, but looking at the original data no one can find out what. If there's any truth to this stuff marriage for the average man is not only a horrible bet due to the whacked divorce laws, but there's apparently few partners who don't have considerable risks.

Why is this so hard to understand? Because you have to find a way to justify yourself.

The simple fact is that men do not want the town bicycle for a wife. For just sex she is fine, pump her and dump her.

First of all, it reflects badly on a man to have a slut for a wife, his status is automatically lowered, as in "what, you couldn't do any better?". Second of all, marrying a woman who was so insatiable that she just had to let 70 other dudes have her before you means you're not special in any way. Sex is supposed to be the expression of love, and if this woman couldn't hold out, her love can't be expressed in that way any more. Having sex with a girl who's given herself to 70 other guys means nothing, she's not giving you anything she hasn't given countless others. If this woman doesn't make you feel proud and special to have given herself to you, she's worthless except for blowing a load in.

The guys who act like sluts are a good thing are only thinking from the point of view of sex.

In other words, sex is the most valuable thing a woman has to give to a man. The more you give it to others the less valuable it is. Women all know this, some just choose to ignore it and rationalize their behavior as you are attempting to do here.

When a woman have sex with a man she might use the pill and might use a condom. Still, there is a part of her mind, an deep unconscious part of her mind, that will view the intercourse as it was thousands of years ago, as a commitment of a woman to a man.

A commitment to take the man sperm inside of her body, a commitment to be pregnant with the man’s child for nine months, a commitment to have painful and dangerous childbirth, a commitment to feed the child and a commitment to take care of the child.

For a woman any intercourse is a commitment, no matter what her conscious lips say, no matter what feminism and sex-in-the-city indoctrinated her to think about sex.

Always remember this.

A woman who have a one-night stands, a woman who sleep with men after several hours, a woman who can casually willing to commit to any man, who can casually give so much of her body, time and energy, for free or for the very small price of alcohol, has very little to offer.

Such a woman is not worthy of having an emotional bond with. Her commitment to you will be shallow since she had already gave her commitment to the all the men she had sex with before.